The Cannnoical Five and Absence of Veneral Disease.

[Richard Patterson]

I find it interesting that none of the canonical five Ripper victims had traces of venereal diseases. This is despite residing in a ,area in which social reformers then and social workers now say was thick with diseased ridden prostitutes. Some people have even fingered suspects all because their suspects have had a STD and there has been speculation the murders were done out of revenge against a prostitute who might have infected them. Now some might say that any prostitute would be considered lucky if they worked in Whitechapel and had not caught a sexually transmitted disease, but one sure thing about the canonical five is that they were not lucky. Five 'randomly' selected women who had worked for years of prostitutes, were all disease free. Either all the talk about diseased prostitutes was mere hype or there is something more to it. Perhaps the killer somehow knew or could accurately gauge their medical history. Or is it some bizarre coincidence?

[Pcdunn]

I did note in the bio on Elizabeth Stride here on Casebook that she apparently had been treated for such an illness in Sweden, before coming to London.

[c.d.]

How was this information on the C5 obtained? Was it from the autopsies?

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Richard,

I am not really sure what to make of this information or how it could be relevant. Here are just some random thoughts:

1. I have to wonder how accurate testing for STDs was in 1888. Could a prostitute have an STD that didn't show up on a test?

2. With the exception of Kelly, the other C5 were believed to only have engaged in prostitution part time.

3. They might have limited themselves to oral sex or some other practices as opposed to full intercourse.

4. They were lucky.

If the killer availed himself of prostitutes on a regular basis it could be hard to attribute his STD to a particular one. I have no idea how he would be able to gauge their medical history.

It is probably a reasonable conclusion that their was a high incidence of STDs among the prostitutes but that not every single one was infected. So the idea of a "bizarre coincidence" seems a bit over the top.

Finally, it is only speculation that revenge against the prostitute class for giving the killer an STD was the motive for the killings.

c.d.

[Errata]

There weren't "tests" the way there are now. Basically, if you had the symptoms, you had it. And most symptoms would have been apparent in the autopsy. Notable exceptions being Herpes and syphilis, both of which has latency periods with no visible symptoms. We the victims in those latent stages, there would be no way to determine that they had a venereal disease. Which is why I'm pretty sure that none of the women were definitely pronounced clean.

Otherwise you are looking at transmission rates in the 30% range, so if they were not prolific in their prostitution, they could have gotten very lucky.

[c.d.]

Thank you for that, Errata. It looks like you know your STDs.

I still can't see what inferences can be drawn from the original post.

c.d.

[Azarna]

Hmm, this is interesting.

I suppose I also had the mental image of the poor East End "unfortunate", with her dirty clothes and disease ridden "bits and pieces".

Maybe venereal disease was not as prevalent as we assume? As has been noted, there was alternative sexual techniques that the women could use, and some accounts imply that they tried to do so wherever possible - presumably to prevent disease as well as pregnancies.

I was wondering if the presence of minor STDs would not have been noted in the autopsies, did they note every single ailment they spotted? "The victim has a runny nose", or only ones that were pertinent to the case? Would a few genital warts, for example, have been recorded? (or even noticeable in the cases where the women's genitals were mutilated?)

[Errata]

Thank you for that, Errata. It looks like you know your STDs.

I still can't see what inferences can be drawn from the original post.

c.d.

Six years teaching sex ed. I'm so pleased that finally some piece of information I impart will actually be absorbed. Better late than never.

Yeah the blood tests came about maybe 20 years after the Autumn of Terror? At least syphilis did. I admit I'm not sure about herpes, but since it's a virus and even today still primarily diagnosed through symptoms, I'm betting the blood test is a recent thing. Post 70s maybe?

If none of the victims had a venereal disease, given the presumed prevalence of disease in the prostitute population, one might infer that these 5 women were not in fact prostitutes, or at at least not any more than absolutely necessary. Thus challenging the assumption that Jack targetted prostitutes. Or possibly arguing that Jack got insanely unlucky in his victim choices. I'm not sure.

Odds are they did. I would guess two, based on the rates of disease being reported. The symptoms were merely absent for whatever reason.

[Pcdunn]

Thank you for that, Errata. It looks like you know your STDs.

I still can't see what inferences can be drawn from the original post.

c.d.

From following the Thompson threads, I am wondering if Mr. Patterson is thinking of Thompson's medical training and his supposed familiarity with prostitutes. Just a guess, though.

[Richard Patterson]

Hello Richard,

I am not really sure what to make of this information or how it could be relevant. Here are just some random thoughts:

1. I have to wonder how accurate testing for STDs was in 1888. Could a prostitute have an STD that didn't show up on a test?

2. With the exception of Kelly, the other C5 were believed to only have engaged in prostitution part time.

3. They might have limited themselves to oral sex or some other practices as opposed to full intercourse.

4. They were lucky.

If the killer availed himself of prostitutes on a regular basis it could be hard to attribute his STD to a particular one. I have no idea how he would be able to gauge their medical history.

It is probably a reasonable conclusion that their was a high incidence of STDs among the prostitutes but that not every single one was infected. So the idea of a "bizarre coincidence" seems a bit over the top.

Finally, it is only speculation that revenge against the prostitute class for giving the killer an STD was the motive for the killings.

c.d.

Hi C.D.

All good points you make.I would guess that a prostitute could have a STD that did not show up on any test, but if these diseases were so innocuous that that they gave no signs, symptoms or showed up on any test, there would have been no fear of them. I also believe most of the C5 were part time prostitutes, and that would have limited sexual contact. We do not know about their clients though and if they were part time procurers. I believe most prostitutes engaged in anal sex, to prevent pregnancy. This practice was probably even less safe in regard to STD infections. I agree that assuming that the killer was seeking revenge for an STD caught from a prostitute is speculation. Considering 5 prostitutes in a row had no STD's, I would say very speculative. Some have written that the doctors would have overlooked STD's when making their autopsies, but that seems unlikely.

[Errata]

Hi C.D.

All good points you make.I would guess that a prostitute could have a STD that did not show up on any test, but if these diseases were so innocuous that that they gave no signs, symptoms or showed up on any test, there would have been no fear of them. I also believe most of the C5 were part time prostitutes, and that would have limited sexual contact. We do not know about their clients though and if they were part time procurers. I believe most prostitutes engaged in anal sex, to prevent pregnancy. This practice was probably even less safe in regard to STD infections. I agree that assuming that the killer was seeking revenge for an STD caught from a prostitute is speculation. Considering 5 prostitutes in a row had no STD's, I would say very speculative. Some have written that the doctors would have overlooked STD's when making their autopsies, but that seems unlikely.

Both Syphilis ad Herpes go dormant in the body. That is the secondary stage of Syphilis, one that may in fact repeat several times, and it is a hallmark of Herpes. It is why both diseases were so widespread, because people were passing it on thinking they were not infected. And they still didn't know that the disease could be transmitted during the dormant stage. there were no tests, and 100% of patients were diagnosed either during an active phase of the disease, or from reports of symptoms from during the active phase. If these women died while in the dormant phase, and statistically two did, there would be no signs for the coroner to miss. Any statements saying that they were apparently free of infection were dependent on the phrase "apparent". No doctor of any repute would have been willing to go on record and say these women had no disease. They couldn't. Nor were these diseases innocuous. Syphilis was always fatal, and herpes led to such systemic infections as to also prove fatal. Anyone asymptomatic before the point of fatality was not somehow fine. They were still going to die. They just didn't have the sores on their genitals at that point. Which was the symptom doctor's needed to make a diagnosis. Even the coroners.

Now I learned this is High school. I have no idea why so many people know nothing about STDs, but rectify that please. You are not immune from them yourselves. An ounce of prevention as they say...

[RockySullivan]

I thought annie chapman had syphilis? Wasn't eddowes in an infirmary for a skin disease? Some people like to claim that prostitutes have a smaller rate of std infection than the general population but that seems absurd to me. Logic says to me that all prostitutes without any doubt have genital warts and herpes, and if they aren't symptomatic they are still carriers. I'm not sure how prevalent these two std's were in the 1880's. syphilis seems to be the one disease always mentioned from this time but I would think there are others as well. the thing about syphilis is it's only contagious for a certain window of time, which is quite different than HIV, HPv, and herpes

[RockySullivan]

"herpes led to such systemic infections as to also prove fatal"

Could you elaborate on that errata?

[Richard Patterson]

Without the type of modern blood tests that can be done now we have no way of knowing for certain if any of the women had a venereal disease. What is certain that 5 'randomly' selected women, in the heart of an area famed for its prostitution and venereal disease, had no recorded STD. We can guess that the C5 had STD's, that were dormant, but without any proof it's just as fair to say they were disease free.

[Errata]

"herpes led to such systemic infections as to also prove fatal"

Could you elaborate on that errata?

Herpes sores are incredibly painful and itchy, especially as they are forming. The real challenge was not to scratch and break open the sores. Sepsis was how people died of it. They would get an infection through the ruptured sores, and without access to antibiotics often died.